4.8 Article

Differentiation of human embryonal carcinomas in vitro and in vivo reveals expression profiles relevant to normal development

Journal

CANCER RESEARCH
Volume 65, Issue 13, Pages 5588-5598

Publisher

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-0153

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Embryonal carcinoma is a histologic subgroup of testicular germ cell tumors (TGCTs), and its cells may follow differentiation lineages in a manner similar to early embryogenesis. To acquire new knowledge about the transcriptional programs operating in this tumor development model, we used 22k oligo, DNA microarrays to analyze normal and neoplastic tissue samples from human testis. Additionally, retinoic acid-induced in vitro differentiation was studied in relevant cell lines. We identified genes characterizing each of the known histologic subtypes, adding up to a total set of 687 differentiaUy expressed genes. Among these, there was a significant overrepresentation of gene categories, such as genomic imprinting and gene transcripts associated to embryonic stem cells. Selection for genes highly expressed in the undifferentiated embryonal carcinomas resulted in the identification of 58 genes, including pluripotency markers, such as the homeobox genes NANOG and MUM (OCT3/4), as well as GAL, DPPA4, and NALP7. Interestingly, abundant expression of several of the pluripotency genes was also detected in precursor lesions and seminomas. By use of tissue microarrays containing 510 clinical testicular samples, GAL and MUM were upregulated in TGCT also at the protein level and hence validated as diagnostic markers for undifferentiated tumor cells. The present study shows the unique gene expression profiles of each histologic subtype of TGCT from which we have identified deregulated components in selected processes operating in normal development, such as WNT signaling and DNA methylation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available